Gamespot like most game "review" sites is financed by game publishers. If you'll notice most of the less than 8.0 reviews are from smaller and independent publishers. Gamespot gives so many 9.0 and better that they're meaningless.
Gamespot like most game "review" sites is financed by game publishers. If you'll notice most of the less than 8.0 reviews are from smaller and independent publishers. Gamespot gives so many 9.0 and better that they're meaningless.fenriz275
what he said, both console and pc games are getting overly high reviews all of a sudden...9.0 for the pc version of gta4? see also the halo 3 review lol
Gamespot like most game "review" sites is financed by game publishers. If you'll notice most of the less than 8.0 reviews are from smaller and independent publishers. Gamespot gives so many 9.0 and better that they're meaningless.fenriz275
Some will believe that but COD5 and Left 4 Dead both got less than 9.0 - go figure.
Gamespot like most game "review" sites is financed by game publishers. If you'll notice most of the less than 8.0 reviews are from smaller and independent publishers. Gamespot gives so many 9.0 and better that they're meaningless.fenriz275
hmmm like world of goo that is made by 2 people :roll:
You're forgetting that they fired Jeff Gerstmann after his review on Kane and Lynch. Gamespot were getting a lot to advertise that game, and IO were'nt going to accept a 6/10 score after all the hype they billed it with.
You're forgetting that they fired Jeff Gerstmann after his review on Kane and Lynch. Gamespot were getting a lot to advertise that game, and IO were'nt going to accept a 6/10 score after all the hype they billed it with.michael_tidhar
That was the rumour yes. But was there anyone who actually confirmed that? I mean, they still kept the score as 6/10.
I dont believe a word of this crap just look at madden it never gets a 9.0 here on gamespot no matter how good it is and you know EA would pay for a good review. I think 80% of the time gamespot and IGN call it like it is.
Comes down to several reasons: 1. Companies fall for hype. If you give a hyped game a low score, you are being honest. Big business hates honesty 2. Hits. If you can make a review look good to get that extra few page hits then you are golden. 3. The fact that gamespot normally only reviews popular games (Save M&B) which tend to have higher budgets/veteran design studios.
You're forgetting that they fired Jeff Gerstmann after his review on Kane and Lynch. Gamespot were getting a lot to advertise that game, and IO were'nt going to accept a 6/10 score after all the hype they billed it with.michael_tidhar
Do you really think this way? I think that happened not because IO wanted to, but because that gave GameSpot a bad reputation, I mean, you advertise for the game, the guy looks at that quantity of advertisement and thinks ''OMG, this game is going to be awesome!'', and then Jeff gave Kane & Lynch a bad review, it did seem like GameSpot was supporting a bad game, it really looked like Gamespot was a corrupt website, and Jeff was the paladin that wanted to make a crusade against this corruption. I think developers are making better games, there's so much technology around.
fenriz275 wrote: Gamespot like most game "review" sites is financed by game publishers. If you'll notice most of the less than 8.0 reviews are from smaller and independent publishers. Gamespot gives so many 9.0 and better that they're meaningless.
So then PLEASE explain Sins of a Solar Empire, Braid, and World of Goo. All considered some of the years best Conspiracy theories.. argh.
Well, they did fire him after the review, and they did advertise the game, and it recived a lot of hype, so i'm going to say it's the truth. michael_tidhar
I have to agree with you......When Jeff G. left (was fired) and even before that when Greg K. left along with others, this site was already becoming a shell of it's former self....The old reviews were much more in-depth than I see now and the rating system was much tougher. It just seemed that there were many more games reviewed on all platforms than there are now, even though I think GS has always been more biased towards console games than PC. Just look at the revamped web-site....IMO it blows compaired to the old design and layout.......So the next time you see a game reviewed here and start scratching your head as to why all the scores look the same (8.0,8.5,9.0,9.5), just think about all the changes that have occured on GS over the last several years. Looks to me someone is just mailing it in. It's a real shame ! .....:(
[QUOTE="michael_tidhar"]Well, they did fire him after the review, and they did advertise the game, and it recived a lot of hype, so i'm going to say it's the truth. DieselCat18
I have to agree with you......When Jeff G. left (was fired) and even before that when Greg K. left along with others, this site was already becoming a shell of it's former self....The old reviews were much more in-depth than I see now and the rating system was much tougher. It just seemed that there were many more games reviewed on all platforms than there are now, even though I think GS has always been more biased towards console games than PC. Just look at the revamped web-site....IMO it blows compaired to the old design and layout.......So the next time you see a game reviewed here and start scratching your head as to why all the scores look the same (8.0,8.5,9.0,9.5), just think about all the changes that have occured on GS over the last several years. Looks to me someone is just mailing it in. It's a real shame ! .....:(
*+
This guy hit the nail on the head. Ever since Greg K left the site has steadily loosened its standards as well as its writing. I am not sure what to think about Jeff being fired, I really don't want to believe Gamespot did that, but I do know that it left a hole in Gamespot's trustworthiness. I still like Gamespot though and its the main place I go for gaming news. BTW, does anyone know where Greg K went after leaving? I absolutely loved his reviews, they were always spot on.
Log in to comment